APHC010364132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18622/2025 Between: 1. SNGANI SATYANARAYANA VARMA, , S/O.RAMA CHANDRA VARMA AGE 38 YEARS, D/O.8-2/22,MURALI NAGAR.GOKAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPORTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, RAAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more p. 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payments of pending amounts of Rs. 11,48,223/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two hundred and twenty three only) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the Three works i.e./. Construction of community shelter building near vinayaka temple in BC Peta at Gummalladoddi(v) of Gokavaram(m) vide Agreement No. /2023-2024, dt. 26-02-2024. II. Construction of Drain from Humsabargula Govindu (H) To Sai Babu Temple /2023-at Gokavaram village of Gokavaram Mandal Agreement no 24,Dt 12.10.2023,III.Providing CC Drain from Madi Satyavathi (H) To R and B Road vinayaka temple at Kothapalli village of gokavaram mandal, Agreement no. /2023- 24,Date. 4.1.2024, .and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider releasing the amounts i.e., Rs. 11,48,223/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two hundred and twenty three only) payable to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Ms. Devasri Roshan K., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. Page 3 of 5 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.11,48,223/-, payable to the petitioner for execution of works i.e. „i) Construction of community shelter building near Vinayaka Temple in BC Pet at Gummalladoddi (V) of Gokavaram (M), ii) Construction of Drain from Humsabargula Govindu (H) to Sai Baba Temple at Gokavaram Village Gokavaram Mandal and iii) Providing CC Drain from Madi Satyavathi (H) to R & B Road Vinayaka Tempe at Kothapalli Village of Gokavaram Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of respondent No.3. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.10,53,225/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner‟s entitlement for an amount of Rs.10,53,225/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”. 7. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.10,53,225/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.02.2026 IKN p. 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18622 of 2025 Date: 02.02.2026 IKN